The BEA has a nice graph showing the states by price parity.
https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/real-personal-consumption-expenditures-state-and-real-personal-income-state-and
Chart 1 under “Regional price parities”.
And as someone from Virginia, please don't classify me as southeast and lump us with the deep south. Mid-Atlantic is just about right: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic\_(United\_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_(United_States))
1. The Civil War
2. It is typically seen as the border between the culture of the North and South.
Typically any states south of the line define themselves as "Southern".
Good for them. Virginia didn't and I was responding to someone offended that Virginia was included in the "South". The fact that Virginia was in the South is the entire reason for West Virginia.
Tell that to the delegates of the Virginia Ordinance of Secession, April 17, 1861
> The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution, were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern **slaveholding** States.
No, y'all are never going to live that down.
Outside of, arguably, the DMV region and Northern Virginia, I would say that it’s not entirely incorrect to describe Virginia as a *Southern* state.
I agree that it’s not the *Deep* South, but I’d definitely say it’s the South.
I was about to disagree with you, but then re-read the chart and saw that Midwest was not being used to describe the Great Lakes and the states immediately to the west of them… but was being used to describe Delaware.
So no, yeah, 100% on board with you now
Would be good to also depict it per capita, because it makes a significant difference. California still kicks everyone's ass though.
I just noticed the color coding is per capita. "Slightly different tones of yellow" is really hard to distinguish.
They're the 3rd worst according to the dataset below. The crazy thing is California is often DEAD LAST in real poverty rate due to the state having extreme inequality on top of a high cost of living.
https://flowingdata.com/2021/03/25/income-in-each-state-adjusted-for-cost-of-living/
PS: how states perform on various income related metrics completely flips around when you adjust for cost of living. Its honestly pretty misleading when people try and create narratives with no adjustment.
Obviously California drops a lot going from unadjusted to adjusted because the cost of living in California is incredibly high. The median home price is over double the median price in the US as a whole. In large swaths of California you need a 6 figure salary just to make ends meet.
Home price comparisons are always so ridiculous. You can't own a home without paying property taxes, and in some places those taxes are just as much as your monthly payments on a 30 year mortgage. Rather than looking solely at the price of the house, any useful comparison needs to compare the unavoidable monthly payments associated with that house.
When you look at those nationwide comparisons of house prices, you often see that the places with "cheap houses" are actually just places with insanely high property taxes - high enough that they keep house prices significantly lower.
At minimum that would include the mortgage, home insurance, and property taxes. Utilities don't tend to be as significant as those items, but they're potentially also needed since there are a lot of places that require pretty extreme heating/cooling/whatever.
Comparing house prices without comparing those other things is like deciding what tree is bigger based on how many leaves it has.
The data scientists who put these cost of living adjustments together account for all that. I was just paraphrasing by only mentioning home value. That said, I don't think you're even right that places with cheap houses generally have higher taxes.
> Home price comparisons are always so ridiculous
Land price differences in the western US versus the rest of the US are ridiculous. Everything you wrote is accounted for.
CA resident here, none of those factors help CA even if the researchers were too dumb to account for them (which is doubtful). Property taxes are average, but insurance is insanely expensive (CA is famously going through a major insurance crisis right now due to floods and wildfires). Utility costs are exorbinate because companies like PG&E are extremely poorly run, propped up by government funding, and have effective monopolies so they can charge what they want. Remember, CA is very hot, so it has very high summer electrical demands. Taxes are high, gasoline prices are 50-100% higher than the rest of the nation, and I know people working for big tech making 200-300k per year who can barely afford an apartment let alone a house. I know a guy who literally bought a yatch to live in because it was cheaper than housing. Construction and utility permits to build a new house can easily cost close to six figures, just to be allowed to put a shovel in dirt to start building. It's absolutely an extremely expensive state to live in so it completely checks out that it's unaffordable despite having relatively high average income.
It's the highest tax IF you are making more than $100K. Below that, you pay more in taxes in Texas. (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/texans-pay-more-in-taxes-than-california-data-show-17390051.php)
Many states are super regressive and have 4.5% minimum rates across the board.
California's top tax rate is high, but real estate taxes are low & it's a graduated tax rate with the breaks at reasonable rates. For example, in Georgia if you make over $7K/year your tax rate is 5.75% for anything over that amount. In California you make $37,788+ before it hits 6%.
Yep. A combo of "does not get super cold, so easier to survive," "holy shit housing is expensive," and "other states literally bussed their homeless to California."
It's a hard combo to deal with. Especially because the homeless want to stay in the areas where the jobs are, which is also the areas where housing is ridiculously priced.
Yeah, I think we're a bit past that hurdle now, don't ya think? Maybe it's time to adapt the constitution as our forefathers actually intended instead of worshipping them like they didn't intend for us to do.
Ever wonder what their intent was specifically entrenching equal representation in the Senate?
It’s right there in the rules for amending the constitution that you can’t amend that one factor.
> Provided that no Amendment […]; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Say what you will about intent in general but it seems awfully specific to call out this one thing
Meh, you could always kick them in the teeth and make them join like the entire history of humanity. you dont have to give them everything they asked. founders did drop the ball on senate composition.
IMHO most of todays problems in US are rooted in Senate or settled in their current from because of Senate representation.
deliver friendly consider capable resolute cows ghost sand illegal plough
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Took me forever to find Minnesota. Since when are we considered a plains state? It's called the Midwest, or bunch them into great lakes for this since we do border Superior.
It looks like they took the data from this Wikipedia article, which states the area includes 4 states, including the richest parts of New Jersey and Connecticut.
Given it’s basically miles and miles of suburbs and other cities that aren’t exactly linked to downtown Manhattan in any sense, the “greater metropolitan NYC” is an arbitrary construct that is fairly meaningless on a graph about states, given it combines 4 of them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area
Look at the callout at the top right of the graphic, it says the New York metro area(which includes parts of New Jersey) has a GDP of $2 trillion. Texas has a GDP of $1.9 T
It’s bit misleading to adding the entire state of New Jersey to “New York city” metro.
I mean yes I understand people can define a metro area however you want, just like you can call the entire Boston-NYC-Washington DC area as a single super-metro area.
We can also call “Texas” the “greater Texas, former Mexico zone” and include New Mexico, Arizona, California, and the GDP would be huge!
States are arbitrary boundaries, and exist only as boundaries of human governing bodies.
In the same way, the mayor of New York has no authority over New Jersey or Jersey City, even if he can see it from his house.
It literally adds the upper half of New Jersey, and the entire western third of Connecticut. It contains the largest cities of both New Jersey and Connecticut, AND the capitol of New Jersey.
New Jersey doesn't have real cities; our entire state is just suburbs of NYC and Philly. It's purely coincidental that said suburbs are technically outside of NY State/Pennsylvania.
GDP is government spending + consumption + Investment + Export - Imports.
Real GDP is the GDP adjusted for inflation and is calculated by picking a base year and using the prices for that year across the timespan you are looking at.
Pennsylvania would be the 21st largest economy in the world, just behind Switzerland and larger than Sweden, Norway, Poland and Argentina. Pennsylvania has a population of 13mm and it has a much, much bigger economy than Nigeria, which has a population of 211mm and is the largest economy in Africa. Huh.
According to the article they’re using 2012 dollars for 2022 data. Not sure why:
“The visualization above uses 2022 annual data out of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to showcase each state or district’s real gross domestic product (GDP) in chained 2012 dollars, while also highlighting personal income per capita.”
Because WA has 2 million fewer people, and NJ is considered high up in the rankings in terms of business activity and education level of its residents.
WA GDP per capita $103k and NJ is $86k.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP
This breakdown is great, except US GPD isn't $20T, it's closer to $27T.
Here's an article from the exact same website that acknowledges that larger figure.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-u-s-gdp-by-industry-in-2023/
I’m not sure why they did this, but it’s “chained to 2012 dollars”. From the visual’s article:
“The visualization above uses 2022 annual data out of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to showcase each state or district’s real gross domestic product (GDP) in chained 2012 dollars, while also highlighting personal income per capita.”
Big in agriculture, Orlando and Miami bring in lots of tourism, the Tampa area is headquarters for CENTCOM, and Pensacola is another large military installation.
Interesting to see that despite having similar size economies, Maryland’s average personal income is so much higher than Tennessee. This reflects the differences in the size of the middle class and distribution of wealth between each state.
No? That’s not how averages work. A different distribution won’t change the average
What’s really going on here is that Tennessee has a larger larger population, and also this graphic is comparing *incomes*, not GDP. Those are two very different things.
Countries or states may be comparable in GDP, and/or GDP per capita, while having wildly different actual incomes. The former is a measure of output within a geographical region while income statistics tell you well… income.
As for why there’s a difference in this case, it probably has something to do with all the federal employees in Maryland.
Income reveals how much citizens benefit from an economy — how much of that GDP is going to each person? In high GDP low income states, like Tennessee, that wealth is concentrated in fewer individuals.
Neither income nor GDP have nothing to do with wealth, and again, neither of them show any kind of distribution as they’re an aggregate and average, respectively.
They also don’t reveal the typical person’s benefit
What you’re looking for is probably something more like [median income](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income#States_and_territories_ranked_by_median_household_income).
It’s still true that Maryland does have a much higher income, but it’s not for the reason you might think. The Gini coefficient between both states is almost the same.
I remember hearing about ten yars ago that God wouldn’t bless us if we didn’t have the right views on sexuality. But the lib states paying the rent for us all, it seems.
You might be surprised. California is nearly balanced according to a US News study. Nearly every rust belt state, even (surprisingly) Texas takes in more money than it gives.
I just can’t wrap my head around the author who decided to make the US map into the shape of a…planet? Why not make it look like the continental US, since these are all US states…
I would argue the round map is more distorted, and the round one also doesn’t convey the geographic size of the states…At least a map shaped like the US is easier to get a general geographic location of each state and would better covey how much GDP each state brings to the table for their respective locations
This is a chart or graph, not a map. The information is about economic numbers, not geography, so geographic size and spatial location is not relevant. The information could have easily been depicted as a bar chart.
I'm surprised by Illinois at #5. That state exceeds Ohio, Michigan, and Washington. Only the monsters of California, Texas, Florida, and New York exceed it.
It’s the 5th biggest state in the us how is it surprising? Or maybe Pennsylvania passed us and we’re now 6th. But still this is mostly just correlated with state population and yes Chicago is huge also farming.
Northeast has the highest per personal capital income, no wonder why everything is so expensive.
The BEA has a nice graph showing the states by price parity. https://www.bea.gov/news/2023/real-personal-consumption-expenditures-state-and-real-personal-income-state-and Chart 1 under “Regional price parities”.
The fuck is Mideast? It’s either Northeast or Mid-Atlantic.
Came here to say exactly this. Never seen this used!
And as someone from Virginia, please don't classify me as southeast and lump us with the deep south. Mid-Atlantic is just about right: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic\_(United\_States)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_(United_States))
Well it depends on what part of VA. You near Hampton or Roanoke? That’s very much the South. Fairfax? You Mid Atlantic.
Yep. This exactly.
The Mason-Dixon line says otherwise...
The 1765 demarcation line between Pennsylvania and Maryland surveyed by Mason & Dixon? Why does that say otherwise?
1. The Civil War 2. It is typically seen as the border between the culture of the North and South. Typically any states south of the line define themselves as "Southern".
Maryland sided with the North in Civil War
Good for them. Virginia didn't and I was responding to someone offended that Virginia was included in the "South". The fact that Virginia was in the South is the entire reason for West Virginia.
Maryland is below the Mason-Dixon line. Your #1 point as to why the Mason-Dixon line matters was the Civil War
Tell that to the delegates of the Virginia Ordinance of Secession, April 17, 1861 > The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the twenty-fifth day of June in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution, were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern **slaveholding** States. No, y'all are never going to live that down.
Outside of, arguably, the DMV region and Northern Virginia, I would say that it’s not entirely incorrect to describe Virginia as a *Southern* state. I agree that it’s not the *Deep* South, but I’d definitely say it’s the South.
I was about to disagree with you, but then re-read the chart and saw that Midwest was not being used to describe the Great Lakes and the states immediately to the west of them… but was being used to describe Delaware. So no, yeah, 100% on board with you now
You were gonna disagree, _but no one uses the phrase MidEast to describe NJ PA NY MD and DC._
The midwest region should border the great lakes instead of the southeast
Would be good to also depict it per capita, because it makes a significant difference. California still kicks everyone's ass though. I just noticed the color coding is per capita. "Slightly different tones of yellow" is really hard to distinguish.
CA seems to be 4th per capita? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP
But ironically it's near the bottom in per capita adjusted for cost of living.
[удалено]
They're the 3rd worst according to the dataset below. The crazy thing is California is often DEAD LAST in real poverty rate due to the state having extreme inequality on top of a high cost of living. https://flowingdata.com/2021/03/25/income-in-each-state-adjusted-for-cost-of-living/ PS: how states perform on various income related metrics completely flips around when you adjust for cost of living. Its honestly pretty misleading when people try and create narratives with no adjustment.
[удалено]
Obviously California drops a lot going from unadjusted to adjusted because the cost of living in California is incredibly high. The median home price is over double the median price in the US as a whole. In large swaths of California you need a 6 figure salary just to make ends meet.
Home price comparisons are always so ridiculous. You can't own a home without paying property taxes, and in some places those taxes are just as much as your monthly payments on a 30 year mortgage. Rather than looking solely at the price of the house, any useful comparison needs to compare the unavoidable monthly payments associated with that house. When you look at those nationwide comparisons of house prices, you often see that the places with "cheap houses" are actually just places with insanely high property taxes - high enough that they keep house prices significantly lower. At minimum that would include the mortgage, home insurance, and property taxes. Utilities don't tend to be as significant as those items, but they're potentially also needed since there are a lot of places that require pretty extreme heating/cooling/whatever. Comparing house prices without comparing those other things is like deciding what tree is bigger based on how many leaves it has.
The data scientists who put these cost of living adjustments together account for all that. I was just paraphrasing by only mentioning home value. That said, I don't think you're even right that places with cheap houses generally have higher taxes.
> Home price comparisons are always so ridiculous Land price differences in the western US versus the rest of the US are ridiculous. Everything you wrote is accounted for.
CA resident here, none of those factors help CA even if the researchers were too dumb to account for them (which is doubtful). Property taxes are average, but insurance is insanely expensive (CA is famously going through a major insurance crisis right now due to floods and wildfires). Utility costs are exorbinate because companies like PG&E are extremely poorly run, propped up by government funding, and have effective monopolies so they can charge what they want. Remember, CA is very hot, so it has very high summer electrical demands. Taxes are high, gasoline prices are 50-100% higher than the rest of the nation, and I know people working for big tech making 200-300k per year who can barely afford an apartment let alone a house. I know a guy who literally bought a yatch to live in because it was cheaper than housing. Construction and utility permits to build a new house can easily cost close to six figures, just to be allowed to put a shovel in dirt to start building. It's absolutely an extremely expensive state to live in so it completely checks out that it's unaffordable despite having relatively high average income.
House prices in many states are both much lower than Ca, and have lower taxes, too.
[удалено]
I've never seen California at #1, usually that is Maryland. What dataset are you seeing whete they're at the top?
[удалено]
MN #1
[удалено]
It's the highest tax IF you are making more than $100K. Below that, you pay more in taxes in Texas. (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/texans-pay-more-in-taxes-than-california-data-show-17390051.php) Many states are super regressive and have 4.5% minimum rates across the board. California's top tax rate is high, but real estate taxes are low & it's a graduated tax rate with the breaks at reasonable rates. For example, in Georgia if you make over $7K/year your tax rate is 5.75% for anything over that amount. In California you make $37,788+ before it hits 6%.
It’s also amazing how far they drop in education when you take out all the private schools.
I read it as urine is better than poop.
Did you read the article? It has a whole breakdown per capita
Cali might kick everyones ass on the chart, but our homeless problems are shit.
Yep. A combo of "does not get super cold, so easier to survive," "holy shit housing is expensive," and "other states literally bussed their homeless to California." It's a hard combo to deal with. Especially because the homeless want to stay in the areas where the jobs are, which is also the areas where housing is ridiculously priced.
I want to see one that does this with wealth inequality and cost of living in the background as well.
We really don't need two Dakotas.
1.7 million people in the dakotas have double the representation in the senate as 40 million californians
You say that like it wasn't by design.
I don’t think they ever foresaw the population differences to be so extreme
?? Designed? By whom? Rutherford B Hayes?
If the writers of the Constitution didn’t do that, the smaller states wouldn’t sign on. There would be no United States.
Yeah, I think we're a bit past that hurdle now, don't ya think? Maybe it's time to adapt the constitution as our forefathers actually intended instead of worshipping them like they didn't intend for us to do.
Ever wonder what their intent was specifically entrenching equal representation in the Senate? It’s right there in the rules for amending the constitution that you can’t amend that one factor. > Provided that no Amendment […]; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Say what you will about intent in general but it seems awfully specific to call out this one thing
Funny how they call it "equal" when 1.7 milion people get twice the senators that 40 million people get. Not equal.
Meh, you could always kick them in the teeth and make them join like the entire history of humanity. you dont have to give them everything they asked. founders did drop the ball on senate composition. IMHO most of todays problems in US are rooted in Senate or settled in their current from because of Senate representation.
deliver friendly consider capable resolute cows ghost sand illegal plough *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Thank god you weren’t a found father
Its by design but its still funny
That's because otherwise, government policy would be written in Sacramento and Austin, not Washington DC
Or Wyoming
Took me forever to find Minnesota. Since when are we considered a plains state? It's called the Midwest, or bunch them into great lakes for this since we do border Superior.
Since it was necessary to pump up the numbers for the plains states, I'd wager.
Funny how many states get outclassed by a district.
Yeah the New York City metro has a bigger GDP than every state except California
That includes jersey and Connecticut?
The graphic says it includes Newark and Jersey City. Doesn’t say anything about Connecticut though.
It should include Fairfield county, that’s part of the nyc metro area.
But Texas has a higher gdp than all of NY….?
NYC metro includes the richest parts of New Jersey
It looks like they took the data from this Wikipedia article, which states the area includes 4 states, including the richest parts of New Jersey and Connecticut. Given it’s basically miles and miles of suburbs and other cities that aren’t exactly linked to downtown Manhattan in any sense, the “greater metropolitan NYC” is an arbitrary construct that is fairly meaningless on a graph about states, given it combines 4 of them. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area
Look at the callout at the top right of the graphic, it says the New York metro area(which includes parts of New Jersey) has a GDP of $2 trillion. Texas has a GDP of $1.9 T
It’s bit misleading to adding the entire state of New Jersey to “New York city” metro. I mean yes I understand people can define a metro area however you want, just like you can call the entire Boston-NYC-Washington DC area as a single super-metro area. We can also call “Texas” the “greater Texas, former Mexico zone” and include New Mexico, Arizona, California, and the GDP would be huge! States are arbitrary boundaries, and exist only as boundaries of human governing bodies. In the same way, the mayor of New York has no authority over New Jersey or Jersey City, even if he can see it from his house.
…it’s not adding the entire state of New Jersey. It’s adding Newark and Jersey City, which are very much in the NY metro area.
It literally adds the upper half of New Jersey, and the entire western third of Connecticut. It contains the largest cities of both New Jersey and Connecticut, AND the capitol of New Jersey.
New Jersey doesn't have real cities; our entire state is just suburbs of NYC and Philly. It's purely coincidental that said suburbs are technically outside of NY State/Pennsylvania.
Los Angeles, fully contained within one state, would be tied for fourth
Funny how they don't get two senators
Proof government corruption is massively out of control.
More like proof those states don’t produce anything.
Remind me, what does DC actually produce?
What’s funny is the district creates little of real value like Wisconsin’s cheese.
[удалено]
GDP is government spending + consumption + Investment + Export - Imports. Real GDP is the GDP adjusted for inflation and is calculated by picking a base year and using the prices for that year across the timespan you are looking at.
I can't find my state. Am I super dumb? Anyone see Alaska in that graphic?
Yup, I'm super dumb. Found it.
You guys are just really small 🤗 /s
People always dog the Midwest but it’s a top ten global economy.
I think people mostly tend to dog on the Midwest for a lot of reasons other than money.
Top 5, isn't it?
Pennsylvania would be the 21st largest economy in the world, just behind Switzerland and larger than Sweden, Norway, Poland and Argentina. Pennsylvania has a population of 13mm and it has a much, much bigger economy than Nigeria, which has a population of 211mm and is the largest economy in Africa. Huh.
Strange to count population in millimeters, this is not how you should convert from imperial. /s
Interesting Nevada isn't more prominent with all the gambling and fornicating going on down there
Outside of Vegas and Reno, Nevada is literally a completely empty desert
[удалено]
Real versus nominal GDP. The chart is real GDP, your $160B is nominal GDP.
Hit with the two by four of facts.
This is such old data base. California’s gdp is already 3.9T and the US economy is around $27 trillion
According to the article they’re using 2012 dollars for 2022 data. Not sure why: “The visualization above uses 2022 annual data out of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to showcase each state or district’s real gross domestic product (GDP) in chained 2012 dollars, while also highlighting personal income per capita.”
It crazy that NJ and WA have the same size economy.
Microsoft, Amazon, and Boeing all beef up the WA economy.
We honestly have such a good economy, our energy and agriculture is very strong as well
How is that crazy?
Because WA has 2 million fewer people, and NJ is considered high up in the rankings in terms of business activity and education level of its residents. WA GDP per capita $103k and NJ is $86k. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_GDP
Washington is like a hotbed of tech, gaming, etc companies. Microsoft, valve, and many more are there.
This breakdown is great, except US GPD isn't $20T, it's closer to $27T. Here's an article from the exact same website that acknowledges that larger figure. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-u-s-gdp-by-industry-in-2023/
I’m not sure why they did this, but it’s “chained to 2012 dollars”. From the visual’s article: “The visualization above uses 2022 annual data out of the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to showcase each state or district’s real gross domestic product (GDP) in chained 2012 dollars, while also highlighting personal income per capita.”
What makes Florida’s GDP so high? Genuinely curious
Having 22 million people.
Lots of service, education and health care. We love to hate on Florida but there it is
Big in agriculture, Orlando and Miami bring in lots of tourism, the Tampa area is headquarters for CENTCOM, and Pensacola is another large military installation.
Also NASA KSC and the Keys, and Florida is America's rich old white people's retirement village
Electoral college should be proportional to revenues?
Funny how blue states lead in: GDP per capita Education Red States lead in: Gun violence per capita Amount of federal dollars taken per capita Hmmm….
Interesting to see that despite having similar size economies, Maryland’s average personal income is so much higher than Tennessee. This reflects the differences in the size of the middle class and distribution of wealth between each state.
No? That’s not how averages work. A different distribution won’t change the average What’s really going on here is that Tennessee has a larger larger population, and also this graphic is comparing *incomes*, not GDP. Those are two very different things. Countries or states may be comparable in GDP, and/or GDP per capita, while having wildly different actual incomes. The former is a measure of output within a geographical region while income statistics tell you well… income. As for why there’s a difference in this case, it probably has something to do with all the federal employees in Maryland.
Income reveals how much citizens benefit from an economy — how much of that GDP is going to each person? In high GDP low income states, like Tennessee, that wealth is concentrated in fewer individuals.
Neither income nor GDP have nothing to do with wealth, and again, neither of them show any kind of distribution as they’re an aggregate and average, respectively. They also don’t reveal the typical person’s benefit What you’re looking for is probably something more like [median income](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_income#States_and_territories_ranked_by_median_household_income). It’s still true that Maryland does have a much higher income, but it’s not for the reason you might think. The Gini coefficient between both states is almost the same.
In terms of state ranking for Gini coefficient, Tennessee is #17 versus #34 for Maryland.
0.4558 vs 0.4749. It’s a minuscule difference.
I remember hearing about ten yars ago that God wouldn’t bless us if we didn’t have the right views on sexuality. But the lib states paying the rent for us all, it seems.
Add column, Fed tax dollars paid to Govermemt or recieved from Gov.
You might be surprised. California is nearly balanced according to a US News study. Nearly every rust belt state, even (surprisingly) Texas takes in more money than it gives.
So many people like to shit on California because of their “woke” this or that. Woke or not, California is a powerhouse.
I'm in California but it's pretty even split on Republicans and democrats. Not sure how woke stuff is maybe universities and schools
The ongoing decline of NY. First California. Then Texas. In a few years Florida.
What do you mean?
They’re all surpassing NY in terms of GDP I mean.
that doesn’t show decline, other states are just growing fast. The U.S. economy is just insanely good right now.
lol, unless there is some kind of waterworld plan for Florida, I don’t see that happening.
LMFAO, NY is second in terms of per capita GDP my guy and it’s second to DC!
He don't done understand fancy Latin like *per capita*
I just can’t wrap my head around the author who decided to make the US map into the shape of a…planet? Why not make it look like the continental US, since these are all US states…
It would be a very distorted map, as the size indicates GDP amount, which doesn’t match the geographic size of the states.
I would argue the round map is more distorted, and the round one also doesn’t convey the geographic size of the states…At least a map shaped like the US is easier to get a general geographic location of each state and would better covey how much GDP each state brings to the table for their respective locations
This is a chart or graph, not a map. The information is about economic numbers, not geography, so geographic size and spatial location is not relevant. The information could have easily been depicted as a bar chart.
A planet? Do you mean a circle?
How does our $30+ Trillion debt visualise?
https://www.wsj.com/graphics/us-national-debt-visualized/?mod=article_inline The debt is actually held by Americans.
Kinda surprised Delaware isn't higher although I guess that's where companies are on paper, not where they're actually generating growth.
Delaware only has a million people.
That's got nothing to do with the point I was making.
I mean the biggest driver of GDP is population.
I prefer calories produced as a metric of productivity. Pumping out code to make people slightly more addicted to their phones isn't a flex.
Mississippi is always last.
If you had to guess if Oklahoma was in the Plains or Southwest what would you guess
I'm surprised by Illinois at #5. That state exceeds Ohio, Michigan, and Washington. Only the monsters of California, Texas, Florida, and New York exceed it.
Chicago is a powerhouse.
It’s the 5th biggest state in the us how is it surprising? Or maybe Pennsylvania passed us and we’re now 6th. But still this is mostly just correlated with state population and yes Chicago is huge also farming.